Assessment of nivolumab benefit-risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to a 3-mg/kg dosing regimen in patients with advanced tumors

Fixed-Dose Versus Weight-Adapted Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Melanoma: A Retrospective Monocentric Analysis of Efficacy and Immune-Related Adverse Events

Changes in the dosing schedules for immune checkpoint inhibitors, specifically nivolumab and pembrolizumab, in the treatment of metastatic melanoma, were introduced based on pharmacokinetic data and analysis of pre-existing clinical trial data in the absence of new clinical trials. Therefore, we sought to provide real-world data examining whether fixed-dose therapy (FDT) or weight-adapted therapy (WAT) influenced progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The electronic case notes of all patients (n = 77) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (ICI) in the first-line setting for melanoma in the Department of Dermatology, University of Luebeck, between the 1 January 2017 and the 31 December 2020, were retrospectively analysed. Although a higher proportion of patients in the WAT cohort were treated in the palliative setting, there were no correlations between dosing schedule, renal function, or BMI and PFS. Moreover, there were no differences between the cohorts in terms of PFS, OS, or the number and nature of irAEs. An elevated serum S100 concentration was associated with a decreased mean PFS in the FDT cohort (p < 0.001). This study, although inherently limited by its retrospective and monocentric nature, provides reassuring evidence that dosing schedule and pre-existing comorbidities do not influence efficacy or the irAE profile of ICI therapy in the management of melanoma.

De-Escalation Strategies With Immune Checkpoint Blockers in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Do We Already Have Enough Evidence?

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, one-dose-fits-all maximalist regimens have been considered the standard of care, with ICBs administered at flat doses regardless of patients' weight. Treatment duration with ICBs is often arbitrary across stages, ranging from a fixed time point to until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ICBs differ significantly from those of traditional cytotoxic drugs and the approved and selected doses on the basis of the maximum tolerated dose are often overestimated as there is limited evidence supporting a direct relationship between therapeutic intensity and outcomes. This can lead to overtreatment of patients, resulting in an increased risk of toxicity without enhanced efficacy. In addition, the use of these drugs is associated with significant costs that burden the global health care system and exacerbate disparities in access to care. De-escalating treatment by reducing the dose, duration, and frequency of administration of ICBs could optimize treatment efficacy, reduce toxicities, improve patients' quality of life, and even decrease costs. Ultimately, de-escalation strategies may help to reduce treatment inequalities and to improve drug access worldwide. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the main issues and challenges regarding the de-escalation of ICBs in patients with NSCLC, focusing on dose-intensity reduction and treatment duration selection. Moreover, we assess the economic impact of implementing de-escalation approaches.

Methods of nivolumab administration in advanced melanoma: A comparison of patients' clinical outcomes treated with flat dose or weight-adjusted dose, a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab obtained approval in advanced melanoma (AM) with weight-adjusted dose (WAD) administration (3 mg/kg/2 weeks). In 2018, the dosage regimen was changed to flat dose (FD) administration (240 mg/2 weeks or 480 mg/4 weeks) based on a modeling study, without clinical data.

METHODS

AM patients have been prospectively included in the French national multicenter MelBase database since 2013. First-line patients treated with nivolumab monotherapy were included in the WAD or FD groups of this study. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Secondary end points were incidence of any grade irAEs, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance groups on their baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2022, 348 patients were included: 160 in the WAD and 188 in the FD groups. In the FD group, 45% and 27% of patients weighed <75 kg and >85 kg, respectively. Grade ≥3 and any grade irAEs rates were 13.1% versus 11.7% (p = .8) and 63.1% versus 67.0% (p = .5) in the WAD and FD groups, respectively. After weighting, median PFS was 3.1 and 3.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.07), and median OS was 24.8 and 37.0 months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.01) in the WAD and FD groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the incidence of severe irAEs and in median PFS between AM patients treated by WAD or FD nivolumab. The median OS between patient groups did not reach statistical significance.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Nivolumab in Treatment of Advanced Solid Tumors: A Retrospective Audit from Resource-Constrained Settings

Background

Immunotherapy has improved outcomes in many advanced solid tumors. In resource-constrained settings, less than 2% of patients can afford standard dose immunotherapy. A recent phase II study showed the efficacy of low-dose immunotherapy in this setting. We used low-dose immunotherapy on a compassionate basis in patients who had progressed on available standard treatment options and standard dose immunotherapy was not feasible.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively collected data from the medical oncology department for consecutive patients who had initially received standard lines of therapy followed by low-dose immunotherapy (nivolumab 40 mg) on a compassionate basis. The demographic details, histology, prior treatment, clinical and radiological response, date of disease progression, date of death, and toxicity data were collected.

Results

A total of 54 consecutive patients, who received low-dose immunotherapy with nivolumab from January 1, 2018 to February 14, 2020, were included in this analysis; 4 patients were not radiologically evaluable. The median age was 50.4 years (range 35-74 years), male:female ratio was 6:1. The most common comorbidities were hypertension and diabetes seen in 12 (22.2%) and 6 (11.1%) patients, respectively. The majority of the patients (70.4%) were of head and neck cancer. The median follow-up was 4.5 months (range 0.5-11.7). Clinical benefit was observed in 18 (33.3%) patients. Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 9 (16.7%) and 5 (9.3%) patients, respectively. Median survival was not reached for these patients. Six months progression-free survival and overall survival were 100 versus 8.7% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.36; p  = 0.003) and 100 versus 29.7% (HR 0.03, 95% CI: 0.00-0.95; p  = 0.047), respectively, for responders and nonresponders. The side effects were manageable.

Conclusion

In resource-constrained settings, low-dose immunotherapy with nivolumab seems to be an effective treatment option. Further studies are warranted to evaluate this approach.

Precision meets repurposing: Innovative approaches in human papillomavirus and Epstein-Barr virus-driven cancer therapy

Viral malignancies represent a distinct entity among cancers. Oncoviruses like the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and the Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) are highly potent inducers of oncogenic transformation leading to tumor development. HPV and EBV are known to be increasingly involved in the pathogenesis of various classes of cancers like cervical, head and neck, colorectal, breast, oral and anogenitial. Therapeutic vaccines directed at such oncoviruses, often fail to unleash the desired immune response against the tumor. This is largely due to the immunosuppressive microenvironment of the virus-induced tumors. Consequently, metronomic chemotherapies administered in conjunction with therapeutic viral vaccines have considerably enhanced the antitumor activity of these vaccines. Moreover, given the unique attributes of HPV and EBV-associated cancers, therapeutic agents directly targeting the oncoproteins of these viruses are still obscure. In this light, an increasing number of reports have evidenced the repurposing of drugs for therapeutic benefits in such cancers. This work delineates the significance and implications of metronomic chemotherapy and drug repurposing in HPV and EBV-associated cancers.

Dostarlimab: A promising new PD-1 inhibitor for cancer immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Dostarlimab, a humanized monoclonal PD-1 blocking antibody, is being tested as a cancer therapy in this review. Specifically, it addresses mismatch repair failure in endometrial cancer and locally progressed rectal cancer patients.

DATA SOURCES

A thorough database search found Dostarlimab clinical trials and studies. Published publications and ongoing clinical trials on Dostarlimab's efficacy as a single therapy and in conjunction with other medicines across cancer types were searched.

DATA SUMMARY

The review recommends Dostarlimab for endometrial cancer mismatch repair failure, as supported by GARNET studies. The analysis also highlights locally advanced rectal cancer findings. In the evolving area of cancer therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors including pembrolizumab, avelumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and durvalumab were discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally advanced rectal cancer patients responded 100% to Dostarlimab. Many clinical trials, including ROSCAN, AMBER, IOLite, CITRINO, JASPER, OPAL, PRIME, PERLA, and others, are investigating Dostarlimab in combination treatment. This research sheds light on Dostarlimab's current and future possibilities, in improving cancer immunotherapy understanding.

Pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-555): Results from cohort B of an open-label, phase 1 study

Intravenous pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks was approved across tumor types based on pharmacokinetic modeling, which showed exposures consistent with previous standard dosing of 200 mg or 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, and early results of cohort B of the phase 1 KEYNOTE-555 study. Results after ≥1 year of potential follow-up for all patients in cohort B of KEYNOTE-555 are presented. Patients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated stage III/IV melanoma received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for ≤18 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety. Overall, 101 patients received pembrolizumab. Median projected follow-up was 21.9 months (range, 17.0-25.7). The objective response rate was 50.5% (95% CI: 40.4-60.6; 19 complete responses, 32 partial responses). Median duration of response was not reached (NR; range, 2.4+ to 21.0+ months). Median progression-free survival was 13.8 months (95% CI: 4.1-NR). Observed pharmacokinetic exposures were consistent with model predictions for pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks and other approved and tested schedules (2 mg/kg or 200 mg every 3 weeks). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 patients (12.9%). No deaths were considered treatment related. These results support the pharmacokinetic modeling and demonstrate that the benefit-risk profile of pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W is consistent with that of 200 mg or 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Clinically meaningful objective response rate and durable progression-free survival within the expected range for first-line pembrolizumab were observed. Clinical trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03665597.

Oncology Dose Selection in Subsequent Indications: What Can We Learn From FDA-approved Oncology Drugs?

PURPOSE

The modern oncology drug development landscape has shifted away from traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies. Following their initial approvals, many oncology drugs have been approved in subsequent indications either as monotherapy or in combination to benefit a broader patient population. To date, dose selection strategies for subsequent indications have not been systematically reviewed. This review examines how approved dosing regimens were selected in subsequent indications for FDA-approved oncology drugs.

METHODS

The Drugs@FDA database was used to identify FDA-approved new molecular entities (NMEs) between 2010 and 2023. NMEs with more than 1 approved indication were included in the analysis. In total, the dosing regimens for 67 novel oncology drugs that obtained FDA approvals for multiple indications were evaluated.

FINDINGS

Overall, in subsequent indications, 72% of NMEs used the same or clinically equivalent alternative dosing regimens to those approved in the initial indications. Amongst the 28% of NMEs that used different dosing regimens, safety/tolerability was the leading cause of a dosing regimen changes in both monotherapy and combination therapy settings. Other factors leading to changes in dosing regimens include differences in tumor biology, disease burden, pharmacokinetics, and overall benefit-risk profiles obtained from dose-finding studies.

IMPLICATIONS

Our analysis highlighted the importance of selecting a safe, tolerable, and yet efficacious dosing regimen for the initial indication as a suboptimal initially approved regimen could lead to dosing regimen changes in later indications. Preclinical and clinical data could be leveraged to understand the pharmacology, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic differences between indications and thus support dose selection in subsequent indications.

Pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes of low-dose nivolumab relative to conventional dose in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Nivolumab is approved at various doses, including 3 mg/kg, 240 mg and 480 mg flat doses at various dosing intervals. The concept of low-dose immunotherapy is gaining traction in recent years. However, there is a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes at lower doses.

METHODS

Patients were either administered 40 mg flat dose or 3 mg/kg Q2W/Q3W, depending on affordability as per prevailing hospital practice. All patients were hospitalized on day 1 and pharmacokinetic samples were collected at 0, 0.5, 1.0, 6.0, 24.0, 72.0 h and day 14 following administration of the first dose of nivolumab. Plasma nivolumab levels were measured by ELISA. Patients were followed up for response and toxicity.

RESULTS

Twenty five patients were included in the study. Fourteen received nivolumab at conventional dose (3 mg/kg), while 11 patients received low-dose (40 mg flat). The geometric means of dose normalized Cmax and AUC0-t were comparable between those who received conventional dose and low-dose of nivolumab (0.28 versus 0.23 µg/mL/mg and 0.0014 versus 0.0011 d/mL respectively). Nineteen patients were evaluable for response. ORR among patients who received conventional dose was 5/11 (45.5%) whereas it was 4/9 (44.4%) in the low-dose cohort. All 14 (100%) patients in conventional dosing group and 7/11 patients (63.64%) in low-dose group had treatment emergent adverse events. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were observed in 4/14 patients in conventional dose group and none in low-dose group.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose nivolumab leads to lower exposure in patients as compared with conventional dose, but low-dose was better tolerated, while response rates were comparable to conventional dose.

Relationship between energetic gap and sensitivity to anti-programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients: The ELY-2 study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We previously reported in the ELY prospective study that increased resting energy expenditure (REE) - so-called hypermetabolism - worsened tumor response, 6-month progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Here, we investigated the effect of caloric coverage on the sensitivity to ICI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed a multicentric database of mNSCLC patients treated with ICI. All patients had a baseline nutritional assessment including REE measured with indirect calorimetry and a dietitian estimation of food intakes. Measured/theoretical REE ≥110% defined hypermetabolism. Intakes ≥90% of estimated needs defined caloric coverage. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included response rate and OS.

RESULTS

Among 162 patients, 84 (51.9%) were normometabolic, and 78 (48.1%) hypermetabolic. In hypermetabolic patients, 40 (51.3%) met their caloric needs (group A) while 38 (48.7%) did not (group B). Median PFS was 4.3 vs. 1.9 months in groups A and B, respectively (HR: 0.49, 95%CI [0.31-0.80], p = 0.004). The PFS achieved in the group A and in normometabolic patients were similar (HR: 0.99, 95%CI [0.65-1.51], p = 0.95). In multivariate analysis, caloric coverage was independently associated with improved PFS in hypermetabolic patients (HR: 0.56, 95%CI [0.31-0.99], p = 0.048). Among hypermetabolic patients, the median OS was higher in the group A (HR: 0.58, 95%CI [0.35-0.95], p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Energy supply is a critical determinant of the sensitivity to ICI in NSCLC patients. A randomized study to evaluate the benefit of early nutritional intervention is warranted.

Efficacy and Safety of Salvage-line Nivolumab Monotherapy for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comparison of 240 mg Versus 480 mg Doses

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab monotherapy is the standard second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy without anti-PD-1 antibody. Fixed dosing with 240 mg every 2 weeks was approved initially, followed by fixed dosing with 480 mg every 4 weeks based on pharmacokinetics data. However, information on the comparative efficacy and safety of the two doses remains limited.

METHODS

We compared progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) between the two doses in 117 patients who received second-line (n = 85) or later-line (n = 32) nivolumab monotherapy at our institution between January 2016 and December 2021.

RESULTS

In the second-line group, patient characteristics for the 240 mg and 480 mg groups were as follows (240 mg vs. 480 mg): performance status (PS) 0/1/2 was 34/61/5% vs. 54/42/4%, and prior fluoropyrimidine plus platinum therapy (FP) was 81.3% vs. 42.3%. In the later-line group, the characteristics were: PS 0/1/2 was 28/60/12% vs. 14/86/0%, and prior FP was 60.0% vs. 42.8%. ORR was 11.9 vs. 24.0% in the second-line group (p = 0.19) and 0 vs. 14.3% in the later-line group (p = 0.22). Median PFS was 1.7 vs. 4.1 months on second-line (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.01, p = 0.056) and 1.4 vs. 1.8 months on later-line (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23-1.46, p = 0.25); AEs of any grade were observed in 58.3 vs. 69.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of the two doses of nivolumab monotherapy were comparable in patients with advanced ESCC.

An Evidence-Based Rationale for Dose De-escalation of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of different forms of cancer. The subcutaneous formulation of atezolizumab has recently received approval. However, treatment with atezolizumab continues to be expensive, and the number of patients needing treatment with this drug continues to increase.

OBJECTIVE

We propose two alternative dosing regimens for subcutaneous atezolizumab to reduce drug expenses while ensuring effective exposure; one may be directly implemented in the clinic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We developed two alternative dose interval prolongation strategies based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation. The first dosing regimen was based on patients' weight while maintaining equivalent systemic drug exposure by adhering to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for in silico dose adjustments. The second dosing regimen aimed to have a minimum atezolizumab concentration above the 6 µg/mL threshold, associated with 95% intratumoral PD-L1 receptor saturation for at least 95% of all patients.

RESULTS

We found that, for the weight-based dosing regimen, the approved 3-week dosing interval could be extended to 5 weeks for patients < 50 kg and 4 weeks for patients weighing 50-65 kg. Besides improving patient convenience, these alternative dosing intervals led to a predicted 7% and 12% cost reduction for either the USA or European population. For the second dosing regimen, we predicted that a 6-week dosing interval would result in 95% of the patients above the 6 µg/mL threshold while reducing costs by 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed and evaluated two alternative dosing regimens that resulted in a cost reduction. Our weight-based dosing regimen can be directly implemented and complies with FDA guidelines for alternative dosing regimens of PD-L1 inhibitors. For the more progressive alternative dosing regimen aimed at the intratumoral PD-L1 receptor threshold, further evidence on efficacy and safety is needed before implementation.

Utilization and toxicity patterns of 2-weekly (Q2W) versus 4-weekly (Q4W) nivolumab for treatment of adjuvant and metastatic melanoma at BC cancer

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor used to treat several malignancies, is associated with immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Original dosing for melanoma was 3 mg/kg (maximum 240 mg) every 2 weeks (Q2W). Based on simulation studies depicting similar efficacy and toxicity to original dosing, extended interval dosing of 6 mg/kg (maximum 480 mg) every 4 weeks (Q4W) was introduced.

OBJECTIVE

This study will compare safety between Q2W and Q4W dosing at BC Cancer in melanoma patients.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review for reported incidence, onset, and severity of IrAEs in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab Q2W and Q4W dosing was completed. Fisher's test was conducted for first incidence IrAEs using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were identified (Q2W n = 35, Q4W n = 36). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No statistically significant difference was found in incidence of IrAEs between Q2W and Q4W dosing (Q2W 40% vs Q4W 50%, p = 0.477). Rash was most common (Q2W 79% vs Q4W 50%) followed by hypothyroidism (Q2W 33% vs Q4W 20%). Median onset of IrAEs seemed later with Q4W dosing (Q2W cycle 1 vs Q4W cycle 4). Regardless of dosing, most IrAEs were grade 1-2 in severity (Q2W 100% vs Q4W 89%).

CONCLUSION

Q4W dosing is associated with comparable incidence and potentially later onset of IrAEs compared to Q2W dosing. Most IrAEs in both dosing groups were similar and mild. Therefore, Q4W dosing offers a safe alternative to Q2W dosing while providing benefits including decreased workload for staff, decreased clinic visits, and viral exposure by patients.

Prolonged in-use physicochemical and biological stability of nivolumab and pembrolizumab diluted in saline infusion bags and in partially used medication vials

AIM/BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine long-term physicochemical and biological stability of nivolumab and pembrolizumab diluted in saline infusion bags and partially used medication vials. This may enable the prolonged clinical use of these expensive monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to minimize the economic loss.

METHODS

Sterile nivolumab and pembrolizumab concentrates in partially used medication vials and compounded nivolumab and pembrolizumab infusion solutions were stored for two and four weeks, respectively, at 2-8°C in the dark. Subsequently, concentrates and compounded solutions were stored for an additional two weeks under ambient temperature and light conditions. A panel of validated and complementary methods, consisting of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, size exclusion chromatography, and dynamic light scattering, were used to assess the biological and physiochemical stability of these mAbs.

RESULTS

All samples showed that purity and concentration had remained within the criteria of <5% as stated in the European Pharmacopoeia. Diluted in infusion bags, nivolumab and pembrolizumab remained biologically and physiochemically stable for up to four weeks when stored at 2-8°C in the dark with an additional two weeks of ambient temperature and light. Stability in partially used medication vials was demonstrated for at least two weeks when stored at 2-8°C in the dark with an additional two weeks of ambient temperature and light.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study justify the storage and clinical re-use of sterile nivolumab and pembrolizumab in partially used medication vials and compounded IV infusion bags for up to six weeks. This minimizes the risk of economic loss due to waste. Moreover, these findings support the batch-wise compounding of fixed-dose and dose-banded nivolumab and pembrolizumab infusion bags.

Evaluation of safety outcomes between nivolumab regimens with differing dosing patterns

BACKGROUND

Real-world safety outcomes between the two flat-dose nivolumab regimens demonstrated to be similar in a study of adjuvant nivolumab recipients for melanoma. However, this study was limited by a single oncology patient population, a small sample size, and insufficient study power. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) between nivolumab regimens with differing dosing patterns in various solid tumor patient populations.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients with solid tumor malignancies who received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W, or who were transitioned from 240 mg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2022 were selected for analysis from an electronic health record generated report. The primary endpoint evaluated was the incidence of irAEs. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of significant irAEs and reasons for treatment discontinuation. These endpoints were compared by univariate analysis between all three cohorts. A multivariate analysis was then conducted for the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of colitis whereas the 480 mg Q4W regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of pruritis. The incidence of irAEs was not different between the three cohorts, while the incidence of significant irAEs was higher in the 240 mg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians ought to be aware of differences in the irAE profiles between nivolumab regimens with differing dosing patterns.

Immunological Drug-Drug Interactions Affect the Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies

With the rapid expansion in the development and clinical utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for oncology, the continual evaluation of the safety profile of such agents is imperative. The safety profile of ICIs as monotherapy is dominated by immune-related adverse events, which can be considered as an extension of the mechanism of action of these immunomodulatory drugs. Further to this, an emerging theme is that ICI treatment can significantly impact upon the tolerability of coadministered medications. Numerous reports in literature indicate that ICIs may alter the immunological perception of coadministered drugs, resulting in undesirable reactions to a variety of concomitant medications. These reactions can be severe in manifestation, including hepatotoxicity and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), but may also have detrimental impact on malignancy control. To minimize the impact of such drug-drug interactions on patients, it is imperative to identify medications that may cause these reactions, understand the underlying mechanisms, consider the timing and dosing of comedication, and explore alternative medications with comparable efficacies. Improving our understanding of how concomitant medications affect the safety and efficacy of ICIs can allow for potential culprit drugs to be identified/removed/desensitized. This approach will allow the continuation of ICI therapy that may have been discontinued otherwise, thereby improving malignant control and patient and drug development outcomes.

Population pharmacokinetics of adebrelimab - Support of alternative flat dose regimen in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Adebrelimab, a novel anti-PD-L1 antibody, has been approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China as an intravenous infusion for use in combination with carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in 2023. A two-compartment model with empirical time-varying CL for adebrelimab was established based on data from 263 patients receiving body weight-based doses from two clinical studies. Significant covariate effects of baseline body weight, albumin levels, tumor size, neutrophil counts, and presence of anti-drug antibodies were identified on CL of debrelimab, none of which were clinically significant or warranted dose adjustment. The degree of decrease in CL was higher in patients who responded to treatment with adebrelimab than in non-responders. Adebrelimab exposures (AUC, Ctrough, or Cmax) were not identified as a statistically significant factor related to efficacy or safety endpoint in the exposure-response analysis. Distribution of simulated exposure metrics from the flat dose regimen (1200 mg q3w) was similar to the marketed weight-based dosing regimen (20 mg/kg q3w), supporting the alternative flat dose regimen in the clinic.

Retrospective comparison of a weight-based dose every 2 weeks with a fixed dose every month: a real-life analysis of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma

Nivolumab was first authorized at a weight-based dose (WBD) of 3 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W). Since 2017, a fixed dose (FD) regimen [first 240 mg Q2W and then 480 mg per month (Q4W)] was allowed. The objective of the study was to compare a WBD regimen and an FD regimen with regard to effectiveness and safety. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, real-life study of consecutive adult patients who had received a WBD of nivolumab or an FD of 480 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The secondary endpoints were overall survival and cost of the treatment. In all, 342 patients were included: 71 in the WBD cohort and 271 in the FD cohort. Of these patients, 201 patients (59.6%) experienced an irAE, and 24 of these events were graded as ≥3. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in irAE occurrence between the two cohorts [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.54 (0.21-1.36), P  = 0.19]. The 12-month overall survival rate was significantly lower in the WBD cohort ( P  < 0.001). Switching from a fortnightly weight dose to a fixed monthly dose halves the cost of hospitalization. Our results did not show a significant difference between WBD and FD cohort in the occurrence of severe irAEs. However overall survival appeared to be significantly higher in FD group. Some clinical trials are investigating a hybrid dosing regimen in which a WBD is capped by an FD. The present results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Utility and impact of quantitative pharmacology on dose selection and clinical development of immuno-oncology therapy

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the cancer treatment landscape. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved overall survival in 20-40% of patients with malignancies that were previously refractory. Due to the uniqueness in biology, modalities and patient responses, drug development strategies for IO differed from that traditionally used for cytotoxic and target therapies in oncology, and quantitative pharmacology utilizing modeling approach can be applied in all phases of the development process. In this review, we used case studies to showcase how various modeling methodologies were applied from translational science and dose selection through to label change, using examples that included anti-programmed-death-1 (anti-PD-1), anti-programmed-death ligand-1 (anti-PD-L1), anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), and anti-glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related protein (anti-GITR) antibodies. How these approaches were utilized to support phase I-III dose selection, the design of phase III trials, and regulatory decisions on label change are discussed to illustrate development strategies. Model-based quantitative approaches have positively impacted IO drug development, and a better understanding of the biology and exposure-response relationship may benefit the development and optimization of new IO therapies.

Challenging the Norm: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Intravenous to Subcutaneous Bridging Strategies for Biologics

The transition from intravenous (i.v.) to subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of biologics is a critical strategy in drug development aimed at improving patient convenience, compliance, and therapeutic outcomes. Focusing on the increasing role of model-informed drug development (MIDD) in the acceleration of this transition, an in-depth overview of the essential clinical pharmacology, and regulatory considerations for successful i.v. to s.c. bridging for biologics after the i.v. formulation has been approved are presented. Considerations encompass multiple aspects beginning with adequate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (i.e., exposure-response) evaluations which play a vital role in establishing comparability between the i.v. and s.c. routes of administrations. Selected key recommendations and points to consider include: (i) PK characterization of the s.c. formulation, supported by the increasing preclinical understanding of the s.c. absorption, and robust PK study design and analyses in humans; (ii) a thorough characterization of the exposure-response profiles including important metrics of exposure for both efficacy and safety; (iii) comparability studies designed to meet regulatory considerations and support approval of the s.c. formulation, including noninferiority studies with PK and/or efficacy and safety as primary end points; and (iv) comprehensive safety package addressing assessments of immunogenicity and patients' safety profile with the new route of administration. Recommendations for successful bridging strategies are evolving and MIDD approaches have been used successfully to accelerate the transition to s.c. dosing, ultimately leading to improved patient experiences, adherence, and clinical outcomes.

Navigating large-volume subcutaneous injections of biopharmaceuticals: a systematic review of clinical pipelines and approved products

Subcutaneous (SC) administration is transforming the delivery of biopharmaceuticals, facilitating care in a variety of healthcare settings, including home self-treatment. Large-volume single SC doses have gained attention for their potential to expand therapeutic applications and improve long-term, patient-centric dosing regimens, often at a reduced SC injection frequency. However, a systematic understanding of dose volumes and frequencies for large-volume (>2.0 mL) SC biopharmaceuticals (LVSCs) is lacking. Accordingly, this study systematically reviewed clinical-stage and approved intravenous (IV) and SC biopharmaceuticals, identifying 182 LVSCs - predominantly monoclonal or bispecific antibodies - which correspond to approximately 15% of all IV and SC biopharmaceuticals. These LVSCs are designed to target cancer and a range of non-cancer chronic disease states, including autoimmune, neurological, and cardiovascular diseases. Results show that anti-cancer LVSCs (n = 75) typically require 5.0 to 20.0 mL doses every three weeks and are administered by healthcare professionals. In contrast, non-cancer LVSCs (n = 107), which are typically self-administered monthly, show more significant dosing variability, with < 5.0 mL being the predominant volume range. Furthermore, the study identified a substantial clinical pipeline of potential LVSCs, many of which are being injected at increasingly lower dosing frequencies, suggesting significant future growth in this area. Most non-cancer LVSCs are currently undergoing clinical trials via the SC route, whereas the majority of the cancer LVSCs are being administered IV and require transition to the SC route. These findings highlight the importance of developing large-volume drug delivery systems and novel formulations to reduce injection volumes. The analysis provides valuable guidance for new product development, as well as for marketing and commercialization strategies in the rapidly evolving LVSC landscape.

A real-world study on the safety profile of extended-interval dosing of immune checkpoint inhibitors for melanoma: a single-center analysis in Japan

Background

Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are the mainstay for the treatment of unresectable or high-risk melanoma. However, real-world data on the safety profile of their extended-interval doses (EDs) are limited, particularly in Asian patients with melanoma.

Materials and methods

In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed the risks of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among 71 Japanese patients (36 males; mean age, 65.0 years) who received anti-PD-1 monotherapy for melanoma at our institute. Patients who were administered ipilimumab prior to anti-PD-1 monotherapy were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups: canonical-interval dose (CD) group (n = 50, body weight-based dosing or 240 mg Q2W for nivolumab and body weight-based dosing or 200 mg Q3W for pembrolizumab), ED group (n = 14, 480 mg Q4W for nivolumab and 400 mg Q6W for pembrolizumab), and dose-switch (DS) group (n = 7, upfront CD followed by ED).

Results

The CD group received nivolumab more frequently in the metastatic setting. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups, including in sex, age, primary tumor site, tumor subtype, and follow-up period. irAEs occurred in 36.6% (26 patients) of all patients (32.0% of the CD group, 35.7% of the ED group, and 71.4% of the DS group), while severe (grade ≥ 3) irAEs occurred in only two patients, both of whom were in the CD group. Most of the irAEs occurred during the first 6 months of anti-PD-1 therapy and, interestingly, all of the irAEs in the DS group occurred before the switch (during the CD). There was no significant difference among the three groups in the probability of irAE estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Conclusion

These findings may highlight the safety of ED of anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the treatment of Asian patients with melanoma.

Comparison of clinical safety between standard versus extended interval dosing of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a real-world retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Extended interval dosing (ED) for inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) or its ligand (anti-PD-L1) (durvalumab) were recently approved based on pharmacokinetic model results that predicted a benefit-risk profile comparable with the standard dosing (SD) regimen. However, safety data in real-world condition of use are lacking. The objective was to compare the incidence and the risk factors of serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and any-grade irAEs between the SD and ED regimens in patients treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IrAEs were assessed from medical records in all new users of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or durvalumab between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 across two oncology centers in France. The incidence of irAEs was compared between both dosing regimens using Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for the main available confounders.

RESULTS

Among 686 patients included, 63% were new users of an SD regimen, 14% of ED regimen, and 23% started with SD and switched to ED regimen during follow-up. Overall, 34.6% of patients experienced at least one irAE of any grade and 11.4% presented at least one serious grade ≥3 irAE. No statistical difference was found between the SD and ED regimen on the risk of grade ≥3 irAEs [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-2.76] but our results suggest an increased risk of any-grade irAEs with the ED regimen (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.00-2.12, P = 0.048). IrAEs resolved without sequelae in 46.4% of cases, and they were fatal for three patients (0.4%). Autoimmune pre-existing condition was confirmed as a risk factor for grade ≥3 irAEs (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.53-4.27) and for all-grade irAEs (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17-2.20).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, according to the regimen chosen by the oncologist based on clinical characteristics, we did not observe an increase in grade ≥3 irAE incidence between the SD and ED regimens.

First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401

PURPOSE

To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma.

METHODS

Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype.

RESULTS

In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients.

Exposure-response analysis for nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040)

This analysis was conducted to inform dose selection of a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the treatment of sorafenib-experienced patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CheckMate 040 is an open-label, multicohort, phase I/II trial in adults with advanced HCC that evaluated nivolumab monotherapy (0.1-10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks [q2w]) and the following three combinations of nivolumab plus ipilimumab: (1) nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w (arm A); (2) nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg q3w for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w (arm B); and (3) nivolumab 3 mg/kg q2w plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks continuously (arm C). Exposure-response relationships (efficacy and safety) were characterized using nivolumab and ipilimumab concentrations after the first dose (Cavg1) as the exposure measure. Objective tumor response (OTR) and overall survival (OS) improvements were associated with increased ipilimumab exposure (OTR: odds ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.86; OS: hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98), but not nivolumab exposure (OTR: odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02; OS: hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32). Hepatic treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events were more common in arm A than in arms B or C. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w had the most favorable benefit:risk profile in patients with advanced HCC.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of immune checkpoint inhibitors: based on their pharmacokinetic properties and biomarkers

As a new means of oncology treatment, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can improve survival rates in patients with resistant or refractory tumors. However, there are obvious inter-individual differences in the unsatisfactory response rate, drug resistance rate and the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAE). These questions have sparked interest in researchers looking for a way to screen sensitive populations and predict efficacy and safety. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a way to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medication by measuring the concentration of drugs in body fluids and adjusting the medication regimen. It has the potential to be an adjunctive means of predicting the safety and efficacy of ICIs treatment. In this review, the author outlined the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of ICIs in patients. The feasibility and limitations of TDM of ICIs were discussed by summarizing the relationships between the pharmacokinetic parameters and the efficacy, toxicity and biomarkers.

Safety of extended interval dosing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown.

METHODS

Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described.

RESULTS

A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials.

Nivolumab combination therapy as first-line treatments for unresectable, advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal cancers continue to confer a dismal prognosis. Targeted and immune therapies have skyrocketed in the world of cancer management. Unlike other solid tumors, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has lacked effective targeted therapy. Promising outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently changed ESCC management.

AREAS COVERED

Nivolumab has been granted several approvals to treat ESCC patients. Nivolumab is recommended as adjuvant therapy for localized ESCC patients following trimodality therapy who have residual cancer in the surgical specimen (lymph node(s) and or the primary). CheckMate-648 led to dual ICI therapy approval with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab plus platinum with fluoropyrimidine as first line treatment for unresectable ESCC patients. ATTRACTION-3 resulted in nivolumab approval for second line therapy of unresectable ESCC patients who have not been exposed to ICI. Here we provide a review of nivolumab and how this relates to ESCC management.

EXPERT OPINION

Some ESCC patients will not experience a response to ICIs. Determining intrinsic and acquired resistance patterns are needed to further capitalize on ICI therapy for ESCC patients. PD-L1 expression has been explored as a potential biomarker. Data shows, however, PD-L1 positive tumor patients benefit but this assessment is not always needed.

A Systematic Evaluation of Cost-Saving Dosing Regimens for Therapeutic Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses.

METHODS

We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development.

RESULTS

We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice.

Low-Dose Immunotherapy: Is It Just an Illusion?

The development and use of immunotherapy in the last decade have led to a drastic improvement in results in the onco-haematological field. This has implied, on the one hand, the need for clinicians to manage a new type of adverse event and, on the other hand, a significant increase in costs. However, emerging scientific evidence suggests that, as with other drugs in the recent past, the registry dosage can be drastically reduced for immunotherapies without penalizing their effectiveness. This would also lead to an important reduction in costs, expanding the audience of cancer patients who could access immunotherapy-based treatments. In this “Commentary”, we analyze the available evidence of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and the most recent literature in favor of low-dose immunotherapy.

A comprehensive regulatory and industry review of modeling and simulation practices in oncology clinical drug development

Exposure-response (E-R) analyses are an integral component in the development of oncology products. Characterizing the relationship between drug exposure metrics and response allows the sponsor to use modeling and simulation to address both internal and external drug development questions (e.g., optimal dose, frequency of administration, dose adjustments for special populations). This white paper is the output of an industry-government collaboration among scientists with broad experience in E-R modeling as part of regulatory submissions. The goal of this white paper is to provide guidance on what the preferred methods for E-R analysis in oncology clinical drug development are and what metrics of exposure should be considered.

Hepatotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: What is Currently Known

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to provide a complete hepatotoxicity profile, hepatotoxicity spectrum, and safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs for cancer treatment.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, psycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. websites were searched, and a manual search of relevant reviews and trials up to January 1, 2022, was undertaken. Head-to-head III randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 or 3 of the following treatments or different doses of the same immune checkpoint inhibitor drug were included: programmed death 1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors and conventional therapy. We included 106 randomized trials (n=164,782) containing 17 treatment arms.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was 4.06%. The rate of fatal liver adverse events was 0.07%. The programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor+targeted therapy drug+chemotherapy group had the highest risk of treatment-related increases in all-grade alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and the differences were significant. For immune-related hepatotoxicity, no significant difference was found between PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors for all-grade hepatotoxicity; however, CTLA-4 inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of grade 3-5 hepatotoxicity than PD-1 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

The highest incidence of hepatotoxicity and fatality was observed with triple therapy. The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar between different dual regimens. For immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, the overall risk of immune-mediated hepatotoxicity related to CTLA-4 inhibitors did not differ significantly from that of PD-1 inhibitors. There was no direct relationship between the risk of liver injury and drug dose, whether monotherapy or combination therapy was used.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Nivolumab in Japanese Patients with Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is an antiprogrammed death-1 (PD-1) antibody used for immuno-oncological therapy of various cancers, including nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to characterize the real-world population pharmacokinetics (PK) of nivolumab in patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

PK samples were collected by opportunistic sampling of Japanese patients with NSCLC treated with nivolumab monotherapy. Population PK analysis was performed using a two-compartment model in Nonlinear Mixed Effect Model. Patient-specific factors such as body weight, age, sex, serum albumin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, performance status, programmed cell death receptor ligand 1 expression in tumors, and treatment periods were evaluated as potential covariates for clearance.

RESULTS

A total of 223 serum samples collected from 34 patients were available for analysis. The median (min-max) age and weight were 69 years (38-83 years) and 62.7 kg (36.8-80.5 kg), respectively. The mean (95% confidence interval) clearance estimate was 0.0064 L/h (0.0058-0.0070 L/h). The inclusion of the ALB level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and treatment period significantly improved the model fit.

CONCLUSIONS

A real-world nivolumab population PK model was developed using an opportunistic sampling strategy in Japanese patients with NSCLC. Further studies are warranted to characterize the exposure-response relationship and determine the optimal dosing regimens for these patients.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817

BACKGROUND

CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection).

METHODS

Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02869789.

Adjuvant Therapy of Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Patients With Resected Stage IIIB-D or Stage IV Melanoma (CheckMate 915)

PURPOSE

Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

Flat dose regimen of toripalimab based on model-informed drug development approach

Introduction: Flat dosing regimen has recently been approved for programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors including toripalimab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The objective of this study is to provide pharmacological evidence for a flat dosing regimen of toripalimab by assessing the efficacy and safety profile of a 240 mg Q3W flat dose relative to the currently approved 3 mg/kg Q2W. Methods: A population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model was established based on 1,014 evaluable patients in 13 clinical studies. The exposure-objective response rate (ORR, n = 234) and exposure-safety (n = 152) analyses were performed by logistic regression. Three safety endpoints including grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs, and AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS, n = 234) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Results: The PK profiles of toripalimab are best described by a two-compartment model with time-varying clearance characterized by a sigmoidal maximum effect (E_max) function. Simulations for the first dose and steady-state exposures for the 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen were comparable to those for the 3 mg/kg Q2W dosing regimen with 95% exposure coverage ranging from 88% to 96%. The exposure-safety analysis showed that the probability of an adverse event occurring did not increase with increases in toripalimab exposure. A flat exposure-response relationship for ORR was identified. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that exposure was a predictor for PFS; however, no difference in treatment benefit was demonstrated across exposure quantiles using a Cox proportional hazard model. Discussion: This study revealed that toripalimab exposure of 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen was comparable to 3 mg/kg Q2W dosing regimen. The safety and efficacy E-R results of 240 mg Q3W is flat. Hence, the 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen is determined to be a preferred therapeutic dosage for toripalimab due to the convenience of flat dose.

Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817

INTRODUCTION

We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).

METHODS

We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older.

RESULTS

In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

Malignant neoplasm of the bronchi and lung: Russian clinical guidelines

удалить

An open label, safety study of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving second-line nivolumab monotherapy (CheckMate 870)

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab has been approved in China as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) via weight-based infusion, based on the CheckMate 078 study. We investigated the safety and efficacy of 240 mg flat-dose nivolumab in patients with advanced NSCLC, including those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation/ALK receptor tyrosine kinase (ALK) translocation due to high prevalence in China.

METHODS

CheckMate 870 was a single-arm, open-label, phase IIIb trial in Asian (primarily Chinese) patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. Patients received flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of treatment-related select adverse events (TRsAEs) in non-HBV patients; secondary and exploratory endpoints included severity of high-grade TRsAEs in HBV-infected patients, and safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the whole population.

RESULTS

Out of 404 patients enrolled, 400 received treatment. Median (standard deviation) age was 60.5 (8.68) years and the majority were male (78.5%). At a median follow-up of 37.6 months, no Grade 5 TRsAEs were reported, and the frequency of Grade 3-4 TRsAEs was low (0.0-5.9%) in non-HBV and HBV NSCLC patients. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in all treated patients were 14.7 (12.3-18.1) and 3.6 (2.3-3.8) months, respectively. Median OS was 14.2 (12.3-18.1) and 22.3 (10.0-NA) months for non-HBV and HBV-infected patients, 19.3 (11.2-31.7) and 13.7 (11.5-18.1) months for EGFR-positive and wild-type subgroups, and 19.3 (12.9-23.5) and 13.3 (10.9-17.7) months for those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ⩾1% and <1%, respectively. No notable changes from baseline were observed in PROs throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab 240 mg infusion Q2W was well tolerated, efficacious, and maintained health status and quality of life in Asian patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC regardless of HBV, EGFR, or PD-L1 status.

Low-dose nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

The approved dose of nivolumab is 3 mg/kg or a flat dose of 240 mg for indications. There is no dose-response relationship for nivolumab; therefore, a low-dose regimen may be an option to reduce financial toxicity. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose nivolumab in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients with HCC who received 20 or 100 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks. The objective response rate was determined in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria version 1.1. The Cox regression model and Kaplan–Meier method were used to analyze hazard factors, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

Results

In total, 78 patients were enrolled, including 49 with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and 23 with hepatitis C virus (HCV). All patients were staged as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C, and 20 patients were classified as having Child–Pugh classification B (7). Nivolumab 20 mg was an independent prognostic factor for better PFS, and albumin-bilirubin grade 1 was the independent prognostic factor for superior OS in the multivariate analyses. Patients with better HBV (HBV DNA < 500 IU/ml) and HCV (HCV RNA undetectable) controls had superior OS. All AEs were grade 1–2 in severity, and all patients tolerated nivolumab without treatment interruption or dose adjustment. Additionally, 31 patients underwent subsequent therapy after nivolumab treatment.

Conclusion

Low-dose nivolumab may be effective with manageable toxicity and can be an alternative option to reduce financial toxicity in patients with advanced HCC who cannot afford the high cost of immune checkpoint inhibitors in real-world practice.

First-in-Human Phase I/II ICONIC Trial of the ICOS Agonist Vopratelimab Alone and with Nivolumab: ICOS-High CD4 T-Cell Populations and Predictors of Response

PURPOSE

The first-in-human phase I/II ICONIC trial evaluated an investigational inducible costimulator (ICOS) agonist, vopratelimab, alone and in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In phase I, patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous vopratelimab alone or with nivolumab. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, MTD, and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Phase II enriched for ICOS-positive (ICOS+) tumors; patients were treated with vopratelimab at the monotherapy RP2D alone or with nivolumab. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and predictive biomarkers of response to vopratelimab were assessed.

RESULTS

ICONIC enrolled 201 patients. Vopratelimab alone and with nivolumab was well tolerated; phase I established 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks as the vopratelimab RP2D. Vopratelimab resulted in modest objective response rates of 1.4% and with nivolumab of 2.3%. The prospective selection for ICOS+ tumors did not enrich for responses. A vopratelimab-specific peripheral blood pharmacodynamic biomarker, ICOS-high (ICOS-hi) CD4 T cells, was identified in a subset of patients who demonstrated greater clinical benefit versus those with no emergence of these cells [overall survival (OS), P = 0.0025]. A potential genomic predictive biomarker of ICOS-hi CD4 T-cell emergence was identified that demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes, including OS (P = 0.0062).

CONCLUSIONS

Vopratelimab demonstrated a favorable safety profile alone and in combination with nivolumab. Efficacy was observed only in a subset of patients with a vopratelimab-specific pharmacodynamic biomarker. A potential predictive biomarker of response was identified, which is being prospectively evaluated in a randomized phase II non-small cell lung cancer trial. See related commentary by Lee and Fong, p. 3633.

Population pharmacokinetic models of anti-PD-1 mAbs in patients with multiple tumor types: A systematic review

Aims and background

A number of population pharmacokinetic (PPK) models of anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in multiple tumor types have been published to characterize the influencing factors of their pharmacokinetics. This review described PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs that investigate the magnitude and types of covariate effects in PK parameters, provide a reference for building PPK models of other anti-PD-1 mAbs, and identify areas requiring additional research to facilitate the application of PPK models.

Methods

A systematic search for analyses of PPK models of eleven anti-PD-1 mAbs on the market that were carried out in humans was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The search covered the period from the inception of the databases to April 2022.

Results

Currently, there are fourteen analyses on PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs summarized in this review, including seven models that refer to nivolumab, four referring to pembrolizumab, one referring to cemiplimab, one referring to camrelizumab, and one referred to dostarlimab. Most analyses described the pharmacokinetics of anti-PD-1 mAbs with a two-compartment model with time-varying clearance (CL) and a sigmoidal maximum effect. The estimated CL and volume of distribution in the central (V_C) ranged from 0.179 to 0.290 L/day and 2.98 to 4.46 L, respectively. The median (range) of interindividual variability (IIV) for CL and V_C was 30.9% (8.7%–50.8%) and 29.0% (4.32%–40.7%), respectively. The commonly identified significant covariates were body weight (BW) on CL and V_C, and albumin (ALB), tumor type, sex, and performance status (PS) on CL. Other less assessed significant covariates included lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), immunoglobulin G (IgG), ipilimumab coadministration (IPICO) on CL, and body mass index (BMI), malignant pleural mesothelioma (MESO) on V_C.

Conclusion

This review provides detailed information about the characteristics of PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs, the effects of covariates on PK parameters, and the current status of the application of the models. ALB, BW, specific tumor type, sex, and PS should be considered for the future development of the PPK model of anti-PD-1 mAbs. Other potential covariates that were assessed less frequently but still have significance (e.g., LDH, IgG, and IPICO) should not be ignored. Thus, further research and thorough investigation are needed to assess new or potential covariates, which will pave the way for personalized anti-PD-1 mAbs therapy.

Real-World nivolumab dosing patterns and safety outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for melanoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

Safety evaluation of fixed-dose nivolumab in patients with gastric cancer

Background and Aims

This study aimed to examine the safety of fixed‐dose nivolumab.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 113 Japanese patients with gastric cancer who were previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and initiated nivolumab. The endpoints were the incidence of Grade 2 or higher immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) in the conventional dose (3 mg/kg) and fixed‐dose groups (240 mg).

Results

The incidence rates of irAEs in the conventional‐dose and fixed‐dose groups were 29.9% and 19.4%, respectively, and the rates of Grade 2 or higher irAEs were 23.3% and 19.4%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups, suggesting that nivolumab at 240 mg is as safe as the 3 mg/kg dose.

Conclusion

This is the first report on the safety of nivolumab at 240 mg in Japanese patients.

Strategies to overcome relapse of immunotherapy-related hepatitis: dose reduction is not the key

INTRODUCTION

Immunotherapy-related hepatitis accounts for 3-6% of all immune-related adverse events (irAE). Reintroduction of checkpoint inhibitors after irAE is matter of debate, weighing the risk of a relapse of adverse events against the possibility of improving disease control. Pharmacokinetic modelling has changed the paradigm of weight-based dosing to flat dose for checkpoint inhibitors, however, it is currently unknown if this poses underweight (<80 kg) patients to a higher risk of toxicity. Weight-based dosing has been opted as a less dangerous and more economic option, especially for underweight patients. Is dose reduction dosing a strategy to permit checkpoint inhibitors reintroduction after immune-related adverse events?

METHODS

We describe a case of checkpoint inhibitor reintroduction after immunotherapy-related hepatitis, with dose reduction based on weight-based dosing (nivolumab 165 mg Q2w) in a patient with metastatic renal cell cancer.

RESULTS

After three cycles, he had a relapse of hepatitis leading to prolonged steroid use and opportunistic infections.

CONCLUSION

Dose reduction in underweight patients is not the preferred strategy to permit rechallenge after immunotherapy-related hepatitis. Exploration of other secondary prevention strategies is warranted.

Evolution of Preclinical Characterization and Insights into Clinical Pharmacology of Checkpoint Inhibitors Approved for Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy has significantly advanced the treatment paradigm in oncology, with approvals of immuno‐oncology agents for over 16 indications, many of them first line. Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are recognized as an essential backbone for a successful anticancer therapy regimen. This review focuses on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory approvals of major CPIs and the evolution of translational advances since their first approval close to a decade ago. In addition, critical preclinical and clinical pharmacology considerations, an overview of the pharmacokinetic and dose/regimen aspects, and a discussion of the future of CPI translational and clinical pharmacology as combination therapy becomes a mainstay of industrial immunotherapy development and in clinical practice are also discussed.